Using the Design Process to Teach

Functional Apparel Design

Susan M. Watkins

Abstract

The use of a process framework for teaching functional apparel design is discussed as it relates to developing
students’ creative problem-solving abilities. A typical design process framework is presented, and practical
approaches to implementing the various stages of the design process in the functional apparel design classroom
are discussed. References from works on creative thinking are used to support the author’s premise that the

development of the "process" orientation is, over the long run, more important to design education than a
"product" orientation.

One of the central goals of design education, for any one of motivated and find reasons to devote time and effort to a

a number of design fields, is to prepare students to become
creative problem-solvers. Design students today face work
in an increasingly complex world. The problem-solving
skills they need go beyond simple deductive thinking. Ulrich
Haupt (1978), in an article describing the future of design
education in the aerospace industry, describes the situation
in this way: &dquo;Graduates have been well equipped to think
analytically about a clearly defined deterministic problem,
but they have been poorly prepared to solve complex, ill-
defined problems in the presence of uncertainties. Yet
precisely those problems become important in a technolog-
ical world&dquo; (Haupt, 1978, p. 55). Haupt’s comments are
applicable to apparel as well, and they challenge us to find
ways to develop these very important skills in apparel design
students.
problem), to analyze it (to find out everything possible about
the problem), to define it (to decide what the most important
aspects of the problem are), to ideate (to develop as many
ways to solve the problem as possible), to select the best
idea, to implement (to take action and try out the best idea),
and to evaluate (to analyze what happened when action was
taken). If the evaluation shows that the solution is not a
successful one, the whole process or part of the process may
be repeated. In this model, as in most other models of the
design process, a designer is constantly alternating between
divergence or spreading out to look for a wide variety of
ideas and convergence or centering on one idea.
The object of this paper is to clarify what takes place in
each stage of the design process and to suggest a variety of
classroom techniques that can be used to encourage students
to work through every stage of the process in order to
maximize its benefits for each student.

The Design Process

One of the most effective ways to help students prepare to Acceptance

become designers is to center individual courses as well as
entire curriculums around the design process. There are
many approaches to the design process (Gregory, 1966;
Hanks, Belliston, & Edwards, 1978; Jones, 1970; Moore,
1970). For the sake of simplicity, only one model, a step-by-
step process from the Universal Traveler (Koberg &
Bagnall, 1981, p. 17) will be discussed here. This particular
model outlines seven phases of design.
The designer is asked to accept the problem (to get
Author’s Address: Department of Textiles and Apparel, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY, 14853-4401
The term &dquo;acceptance&dquo; is very closely linked to
motivation. Much of the problem of acceptance in the
apparel classroom comes not with the motivational aspects
for the subject matter or the overall course but with
motivating students for each individual assignment given in
the semester.
Acceptance of any problem, including a project
assignment in apparel design, should be internal, not
external. Most students accept problems because the
alternative is to flunk the course. Although grades, money,
status, and other external rewards may motivate people to

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

10
do many things, the best acceptance comes when a student is
truly fascinated with the problem and sees the assigned
project as relating to his or her life, as exciting or rewarding
in itself, or as an intellectual challenge that will lead to a
future personal goal.
Each instructor has to develop specific methods for
maximizing acceptance based on the needs and interests of
the students in a particular classroom. There are, however, a
number of simple methods to approach the problem of
increasing acceptance.
Centering Student Projects Around Outside Clients
Students tend to be more accepting of classroom projects
if they are directly involved in experiences with clients.
Encouraging students to wear a client’s clothing and engage
in the same activity as the client is one of the most effective
ways of generating student acceptance of a problem. For
example, when design students at Comell worked on
uniforms for the staff and students of a therapeutic exercise
school, they spent two days living with the students at the
school, attending classes and exercising with them. This not
only increased their knowledge of what the students and staff
needed in their clothing but built a personal relationship
between the clients and the students. Students are generally
motivated to work harder when they care about the people
who will benefit from their work. A colleague at another
institution reported that she has an &dquo;adopt-a-grandparent&dquo;
program in her class so that students, when they create
clothing items for the elderly, have a relationship-a
personal attachment to a specific person-before they begin
to design (L. Schoenberger, personal communication,
1985).
Building Projects Around People Students Admire
Another way to increase acceptance is to involve people
whom students admire, either in classroom presentations or
in projects. For example, inviting campus sports stars or
coaches to lecture on protective equipment or to serve as a
jury for a sports equipment design project increases a
student’s motivation to perfect the design of an item of sports
equipment. Many communities have &dquo;heroes&dquo; with which
students identify, and many of these people use some form of
protective apparel. Involving them in the classroom as
resource people can have a significant effect on
acceptance.
Allowing Students to Determine Their Own Projects
When students determine the problems on which they will
work, they often find projects much more exciting. Every
student has different interests; each one may have a different
group of clients with which he or she would like to become
involved. Finding a topic to study may be part of the
problem-solving process. If students are forced to determine
the problem area on which they will focus for a project, they
have to confront their own individual motivational problems.
What do they want to get out of the project? What are the
reasons why they do not want to do the project? What kind
of problem will excite them and get them involved and
motivated? When students begin to discover for themselves
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
the kinds of things that increase or block their motivation, it
can have a tremendous effect on their work in other courses,
not just a single project in apparel design.
Analysis
Analysis is basic exploratory research. Good analysis
demands that a designer look at what is involved in all
aspects of a design situation so that the true nature of each
design problem can be determined. Analysis should
probably be the most time-consuming of all of the stages of
the design process. With a thorough analysis all of the
subsequent stages of the design process are more productive.
Learning as much as possible about the design situation is
extremely important to the development of the problem and
often begins the idea-generating process. The focus here will
be on two simple aspects of analysis that are often
overlooked.
Learning the Language of the Field
Learning the specialized terminology in any field is a
major key to learning about the design problems it
encompasses. In learning to design a knee brace, for
example, it was important for students in one functional
clothing class at Comell to learn the medical terminology
associated with the anatomy and physiology of the knee as
well as the terminology associated with a variety of common
injuries. These students spent a considerable amount of time
finding and using medical dictionaries and learning and
internalizing the pertinent terms so that, when physicians
and therapists came to talk to the class, the students could
understand the material being presented and know how to
ask intelligent questions.
Interviewing Professionals in the Field
One of the most important aspects of analysis that
students can learn is the value of interviewing. Many
students who can assemble volumes of material through an
impersonal library search are terrified of an interview
situation. Yet, one interview with a practicing professional in
a field for which they are designing could provide them with
more valuable information than a dozen library references.
Requiring an interview with a resource person whom the
student does not know can be part of each project
assignment. Younger or less secure students can be directed
toward specific resource people who the instructor knows
will provide a positive first interview situation. It is also
helpful to provide readings or invite professional interview-
ers to class to teach students how to set up and plan an
interview.
Definition
The definition stage of the design process is probably the
one that is most ignored and/or misunderstood by students
and instructors alike. A definition is really a statement of
11
goals. It is a filter; it sifts through the mass of data and ideas
that are collected in the analysis phase of the process and
determines the most essential elements. Two very important
guidelines for developing a project definition are discussed.
Basing Definition on a Thorough Analysis
The idea of defining goals based on a thorough analysis is
a simple one, but it is one that often tends to be bypassed by
designers. Many garments for the handicapped have been
designed by well-meaning individuals who have a minimal
understanding of the disability or the psychological and
social dilemmas that their garment poses. Many items of
protective clothing for industry protect a worker from the
basic hazards in a laboratory but give no thought to the
dynamics of the actual work environment or the factors of
movement, thermal comfort, and psychological well-being.
In both cases a thorough analysis could help set a clearer
definition of the true wearer needs on which the design
solutions could be based.
The analysis-to-definition sequence parallels the typical
scientific research process of undertaking a review of
literature and preliminary data collection and then stating
goals or hypotheses to be tested with experimental data
collection. In design research the bulk of the data collection
is aimed at setting goals-at defining the true problem.
Students need to explore an area-like cycling or police
work or fishing or mineworking-so that they will learn what
the problems are and not simply state, for example, &dquo;I’m
going to design a better cycling helmet.&dquo; Only after an open
and thorough analysis will they be able to know whether a
better helmet is really needed. If an analysis is thorough and
sets a clear definition, it can provide a strong basis for
stimulating ideas to generate a solution to the design
problem. ,
r.,=
.
,, ,. _,,;y,
Stating a Problem, Not a Solution
Very closely related to this is the concept that a definition
needs to state a problem, not a solution. An excellent
example of this can be found in an innovative design for
protective pants for loggers. Traditional designs work by
simply placing (between the chainsaw and the logger’s leg)
layers of materials that are resistant to being cut. The
problem, in other words, is defined in terms of the solution:
finding the most cut-resistant fabric for the pants. Swedfor°,
a manufacturer of protective pants for loggers, has
developed pants that protect the logger in a very different
way. Their pants work through the use of a lining fabric with
strong, but loosely woven yams. These yarns pull out of the
liner easily, become entangled in the chain of the chainsaw,
and rip the chain out of the mechanism, thus turning off the
saw. Swedfor’s designers obviously analyzed the entire
problem and defined it in a very different way. They looked
at all the elements in the cycle, i.e., the tree, the person, the
clothing, the saw and each of its parts, and then defined the
true problem not as one of providing a more cut-proof
material but as one of breaking the injury cycle. The way in
which this problem was defined had direct consequences for
the boundaries of the designers’ work and the creativity with
which the problem could be solved.
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
12
Language is the key here, and it cannot be over-
emphasized how much it affects the design process. John
Naisbitt ( 1984), provided an example in Megatrends, when
he wrote: &dquo;Mary Parker Follett, the first management
consultant in the U.S.... had a window-shade company as
a client and persuaded its owners that they were really in the
’light control’ business. That realization expanded their
opportunities enormously&dquo; (pp. 87-88). A definition that
clearly states goals but does not limit creativity can be
critical ’to the problem-solving venture.
Ideation
’Ideation is often thought of as &dquo;the work designers do.&dquo; It
is the creative, idea-generating part of the design process that
most students find very exciting. However, many students
who have not learned to precede ideation with acceptance,
analysis, and definition may find ideation to be a frustrating
task.
It is important that students see ideation as an outcome of
the design process. Many students believe that designers are
&dquo;born&dquo; and that good design ideas are based entirely on
intuition. If ideas do not come to them in a flash of brilliance,
students feel they are not being creative. However, as
Pasteur said, &dquo;Chance favors the prepared mind&dquo; (Madigan
& Ellwood, 1983, p. 2). Students must be helped to see that
those &dquo;flashes of brilliance&dquo; are rarely, if ever, isolated
strokes of creative genius but rather the result of hours,
weeks, or even years of disciplined preparation of the mind
to be ready for that revelation. They must discover that good
design can be achieved through experience and learning.
An excellent example of how learning plays a role in what
is often believed to be a &dquo;natural&dquo; talent can be found in the
field of music. The Suzuki approach to music education
stresses repetition and exposure to music at a very early age
as the keys to developing musical talent in children (Suzuki,
1969). Dr. Suzuki believes that there is no unmusical
child-there are simply children who have not learned to
listen. It is not unusual to see hundreds of Suzuki-educated
children of two to four years of age playing tiny violins with
an ease that many adults would envy. The parents of many
of these children have repeatedly played specific pieces of
classical music for their children from as early as the time
they were in the womb, thus developing their musical
sensitivity and preparing them to repeat this music when
they are shown a method by which to do so.
If the Suzuki approach were to be applied to design, one
can see the potential for idea generation. It is possible that
those people who seem to have a natural talent for generating
creative ideas are those who simply have been &dquo;seeing&dquo; the
world in a very different way since childhood, in the same
way that Suzuki students have been hearing it in a different
way for a long period of time. Students who are labeled
&dquo;born designers&dquo; have undoubtedly been storing up design
experiences in a huge bank so that they can continually draw
ideas out of it, while others who may be just learning to see
the world with a designer’s eye have less of a stockpile of
creative references on which to draw. While it may take time
and considerable effort for a student with less design
experience to catch up to the student who has been seeing
the world with a designer’s eye for many years, the college
classroom should provide an atmosphere where this growth
can take place. Koberg and Bagnall (1981) supported the
idea that any student can become a designer with this
statement: &dquo;Creativity is a learnable state of behavior
patterns. It is not magic. And it is not a quirk of birth. Some
people don’t just ’have it.’ ... Steady creativity requires a
steady, determined effort. The more consistently we behave
in ways that encourage creativity, the more likely we are to
be consistently creative&dquo; (p. 13). There are many excellent
texts that support this statement and provide helpful
approaches to stimulating creative behavior (Crawford,
1964; deBono, 1977; Gordon, 1961; Osborn, 1953; Taylor
& Barron, 1975; Williams, 1983).
If the classroom philosophy is one that supports the
potential of every student to generate ideas, then the
instructor’s job is one of determining how best to bring out
that potential in each student. Sometimes students need to
undertake a more complete analysis to add as many different
design ideas as possible to their &dquo;banks.&dquo; Sometimes it is a
matter of teaching a student to &dquo;see&dquo;-especially to see
relationships between design ideas. Often it is a matter of
developing communication skills such as drawing or
pattemmaking or construction so that students can express
the ideas they have had building up inside. The design
process provides a framework for action that will help all
students become more effective at the generation of
ideas.
Idea Selection
While ideation is often thought to be the creative part of
the design process, idea selection may actually be the stage
in which some of the most creative design behavior occurs.
Effective idea selection involves the successful integration of
two very different responses to the ideas generated in
ideation: cognitive responses, or those based on logic, and
intuitive responses, or those which are more subjective and
sensory. Some people consistently use only one type of
response; others use cognitive ones &dquo;at work&dquo; and intuitive
ones &dquo;on weekends.&dquo; With the relegation of responses to
ideas into either what might be called &dquo;thinking&dquo; or
&dquo;feeling,&dquo; the essence of successful idea selection may be
lost.
Carl Rogers (1969), in Freedom to Learn, wrote:
...
ledge, the second element of the word, knowledge,
means &dquo;sport.&dquo; Knowledge is the result of playing with
what we know, that is, with our facts. A knowledgeable
person in science is not, as we ... often ... think, merely
one who has an accumulation of facts, but rather one who
has the capacity to have sport with what he knows, giving
creative rein to his fancy in changing his world of
phenomenal appearances into a world of scientific
constructs. (p. 181).
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
This idea of &dquo;having sport&dquo; with what is,known is critical
to good design. It implies that a designer must use both
cognitive and intuitive approaches. Students who feel more
at home in the sciences generally feel more comfortable with
cognitive responses. Those who feel more at home in the arts
tend to use more intuitive responses. However, students
need to learn that the best scientists and designers base their
work on both cognitive and intuitive responses. They must
have an accumulation of facts, data, and ideas but they
cannot stop there. The facts must be put together in a
creative way that involves &dquo;feeling&dquo; the right choices and
combinations.
Implementation
Koberg and Bagnall (1981) described implementation as
the &dquo;moment of truth&dquo; (p. 80). It is the stage at which
students put their chosen ideas to work. For most projects in
apparel design, instructors determine what overall form
implementation will take. For example, students may be
asked to create a full-scale finished garment for a client or
write a paper that is a minimum of thirty pages. The design
process, however, suggests that the &dquo;product&dquo; should evolve
from the &dquo;process.&dquo; Whenever possible, particularly in
upper level courses or those where specific skill development
is not a major focus in the course, a student gains
tremendous educational benefit if the implementation stage
is free of preset constraints. For example, a student analysis
of the clothing needs of handicapped individuals could turn
up a variety of problem areas. One student might find that
the most pressing problem uncovered in her analysis was the
knowledge and attitude of retail store personnel toward a
handicapped shopper. Rather than a meeting preset assign-
ment of designing and constructing a garment as her final
project, a more logical outcome of her work might be the
development of a training program for the personnel of a
large chain of department stores to help them more fully
understand and meet the clothing needs of handicapped
shoppers. While the task of evaluating the many and varied
projects that would result from this approach might seem
overwhelming, focusing on the design process rather than on
a preset project goal simplifies evaluation and increases its
educational value to the student.
Evaluation
The discussion of evaluation in this paper will focus on
only one small part of this very complex topic-the
relationship of the design process to the evaluation of student
work.
When the design process is the basis for project
assignments and a student documents his or her progress
throughout the semester in each of the stages of the process,
evaluation becomes much simpler than when the evaluation
13
must be based totally on product. When the problem is
clearly defined and the student is not allowed to move
forward unless it is clearly defined, then the end product can
simply be judged against the student’s statement of
definition. Does it meet the goals the instructor and the
student have agreed upon or not? Many of the difficulties of
evaluation come about when students are not aware of the
criteria by which they are being judged. When students help
set the criteria, their progress toward them becomes almost
self-evident. While differences of opinion about grades will
always occur, students show signs of improving their ability
to measure the worth of their own work and subsequently
learn more about their own strengths and weaknesses as
designers when the design process is used as a framework for
the evaluation.
In very large classes where the evaluation of extensive
individual projects would be unmanageable, some of the
same benefits can be obtained from group projects, where
group members choose a topic in which they are most
interested and the group works through the design process
together, submitting one statement of their work on each
stage of the process. Streamlining the work that is to be
evaluated can even be a part of the problem a student must
solve. For example, students could be limited to a half-page
summation of their work on each phase of their design
process and present their final results to the class in a three-
to-five minute oral defense or in a space-limited
exhibition.
The design process provides a useful tool for evaluating
other aspects of a student’s work as well. Practice in the
design process can be an objective of classroom discussions
and exams. For example, one final exam given to functional
design students in a class at Comell involved a mythical
planet and a chemical/biological accident from which its
inhabitants needed to be protected. An analysis and
definition were distributed with the exam and students were
asked to develop a protective garment for the planet’s
creatures and a rationale to support their design. Students
could not use a typical approach to designing garments
because the creature had no shoulders, the area from which
most garments hang. It had sensing devices which had to be
left uncovered and others that had to be covered. Its
environment was quite different from Earth’s. The most
effective way to solve this problem was to go through the
design process. Evaluation was then based on the degree to
which a student’s design met the criteria listed in the
definition within the boundaries set by the analysis. Both the
design work and the evaluation process were similar to those
that a designer would face in the work world.
Conclusion
Teaching students to use the design process may be the
most important thing that can be done for them as
professionals and as people-whether they are designers,
merchandisers, textile scientists, or nutritionists. Obviously,
students need to have factual knowledge to solve design
problems and it is natural that much course time will be used
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
14
for the study of facts, the development of technical skills, and
the design and manufacturing of products. However, as
deBono (1967) said, &dquo;On the whole, it must be more impor-
tant to be skilful [sic] in thinking than to be stuffed with
facts&dquo; (p. 7). Putting knowledge and technical skills into the
framework of the design process and developing students’
abilities to learn to think and solve problems is as valuable, if
not more valuable, than any technical skill or memorized
fact. Times change. New technologies demand new skills.
New discoveries even change thefacts students are taught as
freshmen by the time they graduate. However, the thought
processes used to solve problems will apply to new worlds as
well as old ones. Koberg and Bagnall (1981) offered the
perfect summation of the value of the design process when
they said that &dquo;life is a process that has many spin-offs called
products. Although it may be the product that you seek, it
must be involvement with the process that will eventually
achieve it&dquo; (p. 23).
References
Crawford, R. (1964). Direct creativity. Wells, VT:
Fraser.
deBono, E. (1967). The 5-day course in thinking. New
York: Viking Penguin.
deBono, E. (1977). Lateral thinking. New York: Viking
Penguin.
Gordon, W. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative
capacity. New York: Harper & Row.
Gregory, S.A. (1966). The design method. London:
Butterworths.
Hanks, K., Belliston, L., & Edwards, D. (1978). Design
yourself. Los Altos, CA: Wm. Kaufman.
Haupt, U. (1978). Taking a new perspective on design.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 16(5), 55.
Jones, J.C. (1970). Design methods. New York: Wiley-
Interscience.
Koberg, D., and Bagnall, J. (1981). Universal traveler. Los
Altos, CA: Wm. Kaufman.
Madigan, C., and Ellwood, A. (1983). Brainstorms and
thunderbolts. New York: MacMillan.
Moore, G.T. (1970). Emerging methods in environmental
design and planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Naisbitt, J. (1984). Megatrends. New York: Warner
Books.
Osborn, A. (1953). Applied imagination. New York: C.
Scribner’s Sons.
Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Suzuki, S. (1969). Nurtured by love. New York: Exposition
Press.
Taylor, C., & Barron, F. (1975). Scientific creativity: Its
recognition and development. Huntington, NY: Robert
E. Kreiger.
Williams, L. (1983). Teaching for the two-sided mind.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.